Loft and rear extensions at 5 Bristol Road, Southend-on-Sea

What was proposed

The application sought a hip-to-gable roof, rear dormer, rooflights and a single-storey rear and side extension, partly after works had started.

“Planning permission is sought, part-retrospectively, for a hip to gable roof extension with a dormer to the rear and rooflights to the front and rear to form habitable accommodation in the loft space and to erect single storey rear/side extension.”

“The proposed hip to gable roof extension would be up to some 9.7m deep, 3.2m wide and 3.2m high with a second-floor, side-facing window to the north elevation and a rooflight in the front roof slope.”

Officer report

Site and surroundings

The site is a two-storey semi-detached home at the junction of Bristol Road and Willmott Road in a residential area.

“The application site is occupied by a two-storey, semi-detached dwelling on the western side of Bristol Road at its junction with Willmott Road. The dwelling has been previously extended to the side and rear. The area is residential in nature comprising a mixture of single and two storey properties.”

“The site is within the London Southend Airport Joint Area Action Plan Area. The site is not within a conservation area and is not subject to any other site-specific planning policy designations.”

Officer report

Earlier applications

Earlier certificate applications were refused on technicalities, while a later certificate for altering and converting the outbuilding was granted.

“Table 1: Relevant Planning History of the Application Site Reference Description Outcome [Date] 25/00803/PREAPF Loft extension (meeting and written advice) Meeting held and written advice provided. [18.07.2025] 25/00541/CLP Alter, remodel and convert existing outbuilding into office/gym (Lawful Development Certificate- Proposed) Certificate of lawfulness granted.”

“The Certificate of Lawfulness applications referenced above (Refs. 25/00296/CLP and 24/01956/CLP) were refused on technicalities within the permitted development legislation.”

Officer report

What officers recommended

Officers recommended approval because the proposal was considered acceptable in principle, design, neighbour amenity and highway terms.

“The principle of altering and extending the existing dwelling is considered acceptable and policy compliant, subject to the proposal appropriately addressing the relevant detailed planning considerations.”

“For the reasons outlined above the proposal is found to be acceptable and compliant with the relevant planning policies and guidance. The principle of the development is acceptable. The proposal would not significantly harm the character and appearance of the site, the streetscene or the surrounding area. The proposal’s residential amenity and highways…”

Officer report

Objections received

Objections from sixteen addresses and a twelve-signature petition raised concerns about design, amenity, traffic, noise, use and construction impacts.

“Public Consultation 4.1 Seven (7) neighbouring properties were notified of the application by letter. Representations from sixteen (16) addresses and a petition objecting to the proposal signed by twelve (12) members of the public have been received.”

“Parking, volume of traffic and highway safety concerns. • Overdevelopment concerns. • Concerns over the design and impact on the character of the area. • Concerns over the scale of the proposal • Noise, danger, pollution and disturbance concerns. • Residential amenity concerns, including overlooking, loss of privacy, loss of light, noise and disturbance, overbearing impacts, overshadowing.”

Officer report

Who spoke

A local resident spoke against the application, while the agent could not respond because the allotted speaking time had passed.

The committee’s decision

The committee refused permission because the hip-to-gable enlargement was considered visually dominant, harmful to the area and damaging to the balance of the semi-detached pair.

“That PLANNING PERMSISSION be REFUSED for the following reason:”

“The proposed development, in particular the hip-to-gable roof enlargement element, by reason of its scale, form and location, would introduce an incongruous and visually dominant feature within a visually prominent location which predominantly features hipped roofs causing significant harm to the character and appearance of the application site, the street scene and the wider area.”

Minutes